![Re Polemis (1921)
The chaterer of a ship
loaded benzine on
board the ship. The
benzine leaked
causing the bottom of
the deck fill with
vapour. A stevedore,
employed
By the chaterer
negligently droped a
Wooden plank into
the hold and causes a
spark which ignited
the vapour and the
ship exploded.The
owner of the ship sued
the chaterer on the
ground that the ship
exploded due to the
chaterer`s
servant(stevedore)
negligent. On the
other hand Chaterer
claimed that the
negligence of their
servant was too
remote to recovered
under
negligence.COA held
chaterer liable and
damage was not too
remote.D is liable if
the damage was the
direct consequences
of his negligence
The Wagon Mound
(No:l)
[1961]Privy Council
Due to the negligence of
defendant`s employees,
furnace oil leaked from
the defendant`s ship `The
Wagon Mound`the oild
discharged into Sydney
Harbour.The oil split
floated across the plaitif`s
wharf where welding was
taking place. The P
sought scientific advise as
to the likelihood of the oil
igniting during their
welding operations and
was assured no danger of
fire.P restarted their
operation. During the
operation, a metal droped
on the floating oil and
destroyed the P`s
wharf.Privy Council held
that defendants were not
liable for the destruction
of the wharf because they
could not have foreseen
the risk of damage by fire
Principle: The damage
must have been a
reasonably forseeable
consequences.
Hughes v Lord
Advocate [1963]
D opened a manhole in a
street and left covered
with only an erected tent
and some paraffin lamps
surrounding the
manhole.It was
unguarded.
An eight year old boy
dropped one of the lamps
in the hole which causes
explosion and he felt into
the hole and sustained
severe burn.D argued that
the explosion was too
remote to be forseen and
so not liable.HOL held D
had breach their duty to
safeguard P from the
explossion and D was
liable so long as injury by
burning was forseeable it
does not matter the
method by which the
burning occurred.
Chan Loo Khee v Lai
Siew Saw & Ors.
D left his car with its
parking lights on at the
side of the road. This
causes two approaching
cars collided. Majority
of Court held, that D
was not liable did not
create a substantial risk
of the collission.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tortsremoteness-150114110848-conversion-gate01/85/torts-remoteness-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
More from FAROUQ
More from FAROUQ (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Torts remoteness
- 1. Re Polemis (1921) The chaterer of a ship loaded benzine on board the ship. The benzine leaked causing the bottom of the deck fill with vapour. A stevedore, employed By the chaterer negligently droped a Wooden plank into the hold and causes a spark which ignited the vapour and the ship exploded.The owner of the ship sued the chaterer on the ground that the ship exploded due to the chaterer`s servant(stevedore) negligent. On the other hand Chaterer claimed that the negligence of their servant was too remote to recovered under negligence.COA held chaterer liable and damage was not too remote.D is liable if the damage was the direct consequences of his negligence The Wagon Mound (No:l) [1961]Privy Council Due to the negligence of defendant`s employees, furnace oil leaked from the defendant`s ship `The Wagon Mound`the oild discharged into Sydney Harbour.The oil split floated across the plaitif`s wharf where welding was taking place. The P sought scientific advise as to the likelihood of the oil igniting during their welding operations and was assured no danger of fire.P restarted their operation. During the operation, a metal droped on the floating oil and destroyed the P`s wharf.Privy Council held that defendants were not liable for the destruction of the wharf because they could not have foreseen the risk of damage by fire Principle: The damage must have been a reasonably forseeable consequences. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] D opened a manhole in a street and left covered with only an erected tent and some paraffin lamps surrounding the manhole.It was unguarded. An eight year old boy dropped one of the lamps in the hole which causes explosion and he felt into the hole and sustained severe burn.D argued that the explosion was too remote to be forseen and so not liable.HOL held D had breach their duty to safeguard P from the explossion and D was liable so long as injury by burning was forseeable it does not matter the method by which the burning occurred. Chan Loo Khee v Lai Siew Saw & Ors. D left his car with its parking lights on at the side of the road. This causes two approaching cars collided. Majority of Court held, that D was not liable did not create a substantial risk of the collission.